Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Very - please could someone advise


Yam950
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4657 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have an account with Very.

I bought a TV a couple of years ago and I'm paying it off. I havent bought anything else since.

My balance is around £500

I have paid every single month - ok its the minimum but its always paid.

The balance has been slowly reducing - until today.

I checked my bank account to find that my payment is £6 more than usual

I called Very who said they didnt know why and it looked like a mistake on my statement - there is no mistake on my statement that i can see, and the person on the phone said they couldnt see anything on it either that would indicate what has happened.

I was told someone would call me back in "the next few days" and if no one has called me by thursday to give them another ring!

I asked if the interest rate had changed and was told no - in fact the person on the phone said they could not see any reason whtsoever as to why they have taken more money.

OK its only £6 but I'm wondering how they can make a "mistake" like this?

Any advice on what to do as i firmly believe i will be the one having to call them on thursday to try and get it sorted out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use your phone to call them, send a letter with everything you have mentioned here and head it up Serious Complaint and give them 7 days to deal with it. You could also email them - I had to do this once, I will scout around and see if I can find the contact details for you - back shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a response from Very which states

Dear Yam950Thanks for your email about the changes to your minimum payment.From 25 June 2011, the minimum payment on your account increased from £5 or 5% of your outstanding balance (whichever is the greater) to £5 or 6% of the outstanding balance. A document detailing changes to your current Terms & Conditions will have previously been sent to you. You can find the full terms & conditions for your flexible account at www.addtionsdirect.co.ukIf you require further information about how your account works please feel free to contact us again

Kind Regards

 

 

 

Now on NO occasion did i receive anydocuments telling me about any of these changes. Im not too happy about it at all.

They charge 40.9% interest as it is!Whats my next step?

Edited by Yam950
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame you one bit, send them another email saying how you have not received any documents detailing these changes and will be making a complaint to Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading and then do just that. I think they call TS Consumer Direct now and if you google their site it should give you your local address. When you email them include a quote from the 2008(Unfair terms of contract)-I think(!) again on here somewhere, I'll try and find it and give you the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

5.(1) “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the customer.”

 

Ok, slightly different but relevant, you could use the other one too, you will hopefully find it in the library - have a look at the Consumer Credit Act too - that is hopefully in the Statutes Library Section 138 and 140A.

 

Basically the idea is to let them know that you know what your rights are and they cannot ride roughshod over you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats brilliant! Thank you so much! So..... i should write back quoting that and anything else relevent and ask them to revert my account back to the original agreed 5%? Im not really sure what im doing regarding this to be honest lol, but i know im mad as hell over it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its certainly worth a try, don't forget the complaint to Consumer Direct and Office of Fair Trading, in fact put CC (Company Copy) to both of the afore-mentioned at the bottom of the email.

I detest Very, I had paid them some money and they denied it and then they had to admit they hadn't processed the payment. Personally think they realised they owed me refund of PPI which I hadn't signed for - account goes way back, I'm in the fortunate position of having settled the account - have written telling them how much they owe me but they haven't replied - pursuing another catalogue in court at the moment so awaiting the outcome of that, then I will go for them!

 

Don't worry about not being clued up at the moment, you will soon start to understand things and then you'll be helping others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Miss M......email sent reading:

 

Thank you for your email regarding my account, the contents have been noted.

 

At no time have I ever received any notification or documentation relating to this increase either by post or by email.

 

I would therefore ask that you provide me with clear reasons as to why this increase has occurred, as, although you sent me the link to the terms and conditions of my flexible account this does not explain any kind of increase.

 

I would also like to draw your attention to the OFT's guidelines regarding unfair contract terms, Group 10, section 10.2 which states:

If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs or penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely to be considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that way.

A variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract even though it was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments

And also:

Regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”).

Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR states as follows:

5.(1) “A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the customer.”

I have been forced to accept these increased payments and that is not acceptable to me. My payments have increased and this is unfair. I would therefore ask you to revert my account back to the original 5% until it is paid in full, and then close the account.

 

I look forward to hearing from you

 

Kind regards

 

Now lets hopeim barkingup the right tree and i can get this millstone paid off!

Yam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i've had a response:

 

Dear Yam

Thanks for your email.

We can confirm that a Notice of Variation to advise of this increase was issued in a letter to customers on 14/06/2011. (not to me they didn't)

 

Unfortunately we are unable to revert your account back to 5%.(And the reason for this is??)

 

Please accept our apologies. (For what exactly? Failing to explain yourselves properly??)

 

If you wish to make a formal complaint please put your complaint in writing to the address below. (I thought i already HAD made a formal complaint!)

 

Customer Excellence Team,

Sandringham House,

Sandringham Avenue,

Chelmsford,

CM92 1LJ

 

One STRONGLY worded SECOND COMPLAINT coming right up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Told you it wouldn't be as eloquent as yours Yam - this is obviously a time wasting exercise on their part, you could SAR them if you want to part with £10 postal order(template in library) to produce all the info they have on you and also any "so called" notices of variation they have sent you. You could also advise them that if they don't deal to your satisfaction with this that you will be forwarding a complaint to the FOS. They have 8 weeks to deal with your complaint before you can go down that route and they obviously know this but tell them it starts from your first complaint.

 

Frustrating how dishonest they are isen't it - makes you wonder why you ever ( and I did as well of course) ever use their services!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...